Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Posted: 16 Oct 2012 05:10 PM PDT

The bottom line is Malaysians regard anything that they read which they agree with as true and anything that they read which they disagree with as false. Hence true or false is subject to what I already believe and if it goes against my belief system then it has to be false.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Lawyers: Anwar did not seek 'settlement'

(Malaysiakini) - PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim's lawyers have denied former inspector-general of police Musa Hassan's claim that the team had sought a settlement for the defamation suit brought by the latter.

Speaking to reporters outside the courtroom today, Musa said his defamation suit was the result of a "misunderstanding" and that he accepted the "settlement" proposed by Anwar.

In a press release issued after the trial came to an abrupt halt, lawyers N Surendran and Latheefa Koya said it was Musa's case and he was the one who sought the withdrawal, not Anwar.

"The withdrawal was initiated by Musa or his representative. At all times, Anwar was ready to proceed with the case. The withdrawal against our client was unconditional and there was no out-of-court settlement as alleged by Musa. Our client is satisfied with the unconditional withdrawal and hence did not seek for costs," adds the statement by Surendran and Latheefa.

'Withdrawal vindicates our client'

In a shocking turn of events, Musa today withdrew his defamation suit against Anwar, over the latter's police report on July 1, 2008. The police report says Musa, attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail, former Kuala Lumpur CID chief Mat Zain Ibrahim and Hospital Kuala Lumpur pathologist Dr Abdul Rahman Mohd Yusof had fabricated evidence in the Sodomy I trial.

During Sodomy I, Gani was the chief prosecutor while Musa was the chief investigator. Following Anwar's police report, Mat Zain immediately sued him for defamation. The suit is still pending.

Musa was expected to be put on the witness stand today and this attracted a huge crowd in the public gallery, hoping to watch Anwar's lawyers grill the former top cop.

Anwar's lawyers said Musa's withdrawal had vindicated their client, who is standing firm by his police report.

************************************

I always joke that Malaysia Today does not lie. We only give you our version of the truth. I suppose, as my late mother used to say, many a true word is said in jest. Hence there is much truth in that 'joke'.

The issue here would be what is the truth? Who determines the truth? Furthermore, what is the definition of truth? And could 'truth' be half and half, meaning part truth and part not true?

For example, let's say I make a statement as follows: The Chinese consider it taboo to give out white angpows during Chinese New Year because it is bad luck and white angpows are meant for funerals.

Now, that would be what I would call part truth and part not true. The truth part is: it is a fact that Chinese consider it taboo to give out white angpows during Chinese New Year. It is also true that this is done for funerals.

But the part about doing so is bad luck is not a fact. It is only a belief based on superstition. It is like believing that it is bad luck to walk under a ladder or bad luck if a black cat crosses your path.

Hence the statement 'the Chinese consider it taboo to give out white angpows during Chinese New Year because it is bad luck and white angpows are meant for funerals' is part true and part not true. Part of that statement is fact and part of it is an opinion or perception based on your belief system.

Let me give you another example. Around 20% of the world believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he died on the cross to save humankind and was resurrected three days later. Another 20% of the world believes that Prophet Muhammad and not Jesus was the last prophet and Muhammad's miracle is the Qur'an.

To the first 20% this is the truth. To the second 20% this is also the truth. Then the balance 60% of the world thinks that these 40% are silly and the 'evidence' they offer to support their 'truths', their so-called 'Holy Books', are fabrications and were created to menegakkan benang basah or to substantiate a myth and present it as fact.

Hence which would be the fact here, and hence also which would be the truth? We have three versions of the truth and all sides would argue that theirs is the truth while the others are lies. Can you see, therefore, that not always is the 'truth' true? Sometimes the truth may not be true.

When someone reports what he or she saw then that would be an eyewitness account. That could be considered as evidence and therefore the truth.

When someone reports what he or she had been told then that would be hearsay. In a court of law hearsay is not accepted as evidence.

When someone interprets an event (whether witnessed or reported) then that would be an opinion. That person is merely stating what he or she perceives the event to mean.

Readers need to analyse the source of the information, whether the report is based on an eyewitness account or third party information, and whether it is a 'raw' report or a conclusion/analysis of what that event means to the person making that statement.

This, many Malaysia Today readers do not appear to understand. They take everything they read as something that a reporter reports. And they classify what they read as true or false based on their own perception of things.

Now read that Malaysiakini news report above regarding Musa Hassan versus Anwar Ibrahim. That is what I would consider a 'raw' report. It is about an event and about what some people said and did.

That report could be true -- unless Malaysiakini misreported it (which would mean then that it would be a lie). But let us assume that Malaysiakini did not misreport that event and therefore consider that report as true.

Now, that news report comes in eight paragraphs. I would read that report and consider the first six paragraphs as the truth. It is what happened and the first six paragraphs is about what happened.

As for the last two paragraphs, though, this may or may not be true. Hence part of Malaysiakini's report may be true and part may not be true.

Malaysiakini said: this attracted a huge crowd in the public gallery, hoping to watch Anwar's lawyers grill the former top cop. Malaysiakini also said: Anwar's lawyers said Musa's withdrawal had vindicated their client.

Now, when you say 'huge' crowd what do you mean by huge? Huge is relative. Was the crowd bigger than the Bersih 3.0 rally? Was it bigger than Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's Hari Raya open house?

Hence this part of the news report may or may not be true. No figures were quoted and no comparison of 'hugeness' was offered.

For example, my interpretation of huge crowd would be 10,000 people. To me, anything below 10,000 would be considered miserable. Malaysiakini may regard 200 people as a huge crowd. This means this part of the report is subject to interpretation and not fact and which also means it may or may not be the truth.

So you see, you need to know how to separate fact from opinion or perception.

Malaysiakini also said the crowd was 'hoping to watch Anwar's lawyers grill the former top cop'. Is this a fact or is this an opinion? Say 200 people were in the public gallery. Did Malaysiakini talk to at least 50 or 60 of them to ask them why they were there?

This was never explained. So, again, do we take this is fact or merely your suspicion?

Regarding the part where Anwar's lawyers said Musa's withdrawal had vindicated their client, this, again, may be true or may not be true. That is merely the opinion of Anwar's lawyers.

Malaysiakini reported as follows: Musa said his defamation suit was the result of a "misunderstanding" and that he accepted the "settlement" proposed by Anwar.

Is that true? If that is true then that last paragraph cannot be true. That was what Musa said (the "settlement" proposed by Anwar). Is this a lie? So you see, the truth of the last paragraph hinges on whether Musa lied or he told the truth.

Read this part also: lawyers N Surendran and Latheefa Koya said it was Musa's case and he was the one who sought the withdrawal, not Anwar.

That is also true. Musa is suing Anwar so he and not Anwar has to make the decision as to whether to withdraw the suit or not. But this report is confusing us. Anwar's lawyers talk about WHO withdrew. Musa talks about WHY he withdrew. These are two different issues.

So can you see how sometimes 'truth' can be presented in all sorts of ways? But not always is the truth the truth. It can sometimes be your opinion or perception presented as the truth.

But why I even need to educate you on how to understand what you read is beyond me. Is Malaysia's education system that bad that it breeds a generation of Malaysians who have lost the ability to understand what they read?

It sometimes amuses me to read Malaysians condemning me for what I write merely because they are too stupid to understand what I am saying. And because they cannot understand what I say they whack me.

Malays call this bodoh sombong. Dah lah bodoh, sombong pulak.

And we want to trust these Malaysians to do the right thing come GE13? Heavens!

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Rabu, 17 Oktober 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan